2. The hookup culture is mutually beneficial. Men complaining about sluts should reflect upon their own promiscuity before determining that this is wrong. If you have so many complaints about it, you may want to stop hooking up with random ‘sluts’.

The rest of anon’s response was equally moronic, but this is part I want to focus on. The hookup culture is not mutually beneficial. We know that because of hypergamy. It benefits most women, but only the most alpha of men. It’s a fundamentally unequal situation, but anon is insisting an unequal situation is equal. When you consider the belief most people have that “women want relationships” (which is true but only with the apex of men just like with hookups until they get desperate after 28 or so), the concept being presented here (unintentionally by anon) is that this is an equal situation, but men are benefiting from it more than women. In other words, this ended up being another case where a feminist said that equality only benefits men, which is something we have heard from feminists before.

This got me thinking about other times someone says a situation is equal between men and women when it really isn’t leading to “equality only benefits men”. When it comes to promiscuity we know because of hypergamy for every man that engages in it, several women do. This is because a wider cross section of women have a greater opportunity to engage in promiscuity than all but a small fraction of men. However, like the anon above, tradcons don’t recognize this and believe that this situation is equal too. We have all seen tradcons say that “men are just as sinful as women” even though when it comes to sexual sin, this isn’t the case. Since tradcons believe in “male leadership”, their belief in that men and women are equally sinning sexually turns into another case where equality benefits men only. Tradcons believes that the only reason women commit sexual sins (or any type of sins) is because a man “led” them into it. (This adds a new dimension to tradcon opposition to “equality”.)

Here’s the pattern we are seeing here:

Take a situation that is unequal where women benefit over men

Say that situation in question is “equal” between men and women

Attack equality (explicitly or implicitly through misdirection) so that it looks like the situation in question benefits men even though it really benefits women

This is how feminists and other misandrists make situations that benefit women look like they benefit men.

Last Friday was the season finale of Boss which I talked about last month. The Illinois state treasurer who had been caught cheating on his wife was down and out when I had written that post. His wife who previously didn’t care that he was nailing other women was beginning the process of divorcing him. Several things happened to change the state treasurer’s fortunes. His opponent was exposed as a lesbian and her girlfriend was murdered by the mayor. She decided to suspend her campaign which pretty much delivered the governorship to the state treasurer on a silver platter. As a result, the state treasurer’s wife decides to come crawling back to him. They have a conversation that makes her motives very clear. She asks him if he still has plans for higher office because if he still wanted to be president (which he did) he would need to be married. She pointed out how there hasn’t been an unmarried president since Buchanan. For that reason, he takes her back.

While she was humiliated by having her husband’s infidelities exposed, the real reason she left him was because it appeared that he was going nowhere. Once that was clearly not the case she wanted back. This is a very realistic depiction of hypergamy in action. When her husband is falling apart, she leaves because his status was lower than dirt. When that changed and he’s moving up in the world, everything he did doesn’t matter, and she wants to get back together with him.

While it seems like the state treasurer’s wife might be unusual, she isn’t. All women are hypergamous. The only difference here is that when her husband is about to become governor of an entire state, his status is incredibly high so her hypergamy is a bit exaggerated. However, it’s the same for all women. AWALT. If you are looking to improve your men’s health take a look at staustinreview.com.

Last year the Starz network, a premium cable channel in the US, started a new TV series called Boss. It’s stars Kelsey Grammer of Cheers and Fraiser as Tom Kane, a ruthless mayor of Chicago who is trying to hold on to power as he suffers from a neurological disease. The corrupt Chicago political machine features heavily in this show.

If you have wondered about the type of women that have no problem with their men screwing other women, this show provides an interesting case study. While it is fiction, the hypergamous instinct of the women who are fine with their men banging other women is depicted well. These women are married to powerful high level city and state politicians.

There are some excellent examples of how the women in Boss don’t care that their men are banging other women. The mayor’s wife finds out about the neurologist that the mayor has been seeing so she asks the mayor about it. She doesn’t about the mayor’s neurological disease yet. The mayor doesn’t want to tell her so he says, “Since when do you care where I stick it?” That’s the end of that (until she finds out about her husband’s disease) because she really doesn’t care that he bangs other women. In fact, the mayor has been banging other women long enough that it looks like he has an illegitimate son who is now in his 20s. Being the mayor of Chicago, everyone knows he is married so all of these women that he has banged know he is married. None of the women involved whether it’s his wife or the other women care.

There’s another character, the (Illinois) state treasurer, who is running for governor who is really getting around with other women. He is married, but has banged plenty of other women from a black Alderman’s (member of the Chicago city council) wife to getting a blow job from an overweight campaign staffer (similar to Monica Lewinsky). Since he is a major state level public figure, all the women involved know that he’s married. He still bangs his wife too. We even see him bang his wife in his campaign office. This man was part of a plot to have him drop out of the governor’s race so that he could unseat the mayor. The mayor figures this out and has a private investigator follow the state treasurer to get some photos of him banging another woman. The photos are of him banging the black Alderman’s wife. The photos get sent to the black Alderman and the state treasurer’s wife. The wife was angry at her husband when she saw those photos but not because he cheated on her. She explicitly said that she doesn’t care if he bangs other women. She was angry because he mismanaged the politics of this situation and potentially could endanger his future political career.

Several episodes later these photos get released to the press. She gets very angry with her husband and tells him to not come home. She also refuses to do a “mea culpa” press conference with him. Why is this since we know she doesn’t care if her husband has sex with other women? There were two things going on. First is the embarrassment and humiliation. She doesn’t care if her husband screws other women, but she does care that the image she projects of being the perfect wife and mother gets ruined. Second is that their two sons now know what their dad is doing since the entire world knows. She explicitly says that she doesn’t want to communicate to her sons that a good wife just stands by while her husband screws other women (even though that is what she is doing).

Here is the lesson from Boss. If you want to screw other women and not have your wife/girlfriend care, you need to be rich and/or powerful or appear so or otherwise have their hypergamous instinct directed towards you. You also need to keep your activities from being public because while she might not care what you do, she will care if you embarrass and humiliate her. (“Public” in this case can mean things like her family finding out since unless you are a public figure, a newspaper isn’t going to care who you bang.) She will care if you wreck the image she is trying to project. If you are married with kids, she will care if the kids find out what you are doing. That is the difference between the mayor and the state treasurer. The mayor can do what he wants without his wife caring because he keeps it out of the public eye. The state treasurer failed to do that.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes.

For socons and tradcons this doesn’t just apply to sluts and rapists. Socons and tradcons assume that when a woman sins sexually (to what socons and tradcons consider sexual sin), a man must also sin sexually, homosexuality notwithstanding. While this is technically correct, they take this to also mean that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between female sexual sin and male sexual sin in terms of the numbers of women and men committing such sins. While heterosexual sexual sins require a man and a woman this doesn’t mean that sexual sin is distributed equally among men or women. Getting back to the quote above, it’s clearly absurd to say that there is a rapist for every slut out there. In reality, there are many sluts per rapist.

The same principle applies to (what socons and tradcons consider) sexual sin in general. Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men. We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women. That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin. On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

Often you will hear socons and tradcons say that they’re against some form of sexual sin such as premarital sex equally in men and women. Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males). If socons and tradcons are going to attack (what they believe is) a sin, then they need to attack where it is happening. By being against a sin “equally” in both men and women assumes that said sin is being committed equally by men and women and equally among men. As we know this isn’t the case.

As bad as this is, what socons and tradcons are doing is even worse. With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man. Also, who is likely to be in a church on a Sunday? The alphas, the 20% of men who are getting most of the sex, won’t be there. The men who are in church will be from the other 80%. Since sex among women is more evenly distributed, that means the women in church are likely to have committed sexual sin. In other words, socons and tradcons are going after the wrong group in their churches when it comes to sexual sin. It’s just another example of how churches are become feminized and another reason why men want less and less to do with the church. Why would a man want to go to a place where he got blamed for something he didn’t do?

On top of this socons and tradcons will white knight for women who have sexually sinned a lot in the churches by trying to shame men into marrying them. These white knights delude themselves into thinking their female coreligionists are innocent and sexually inexperienced when the opposite is true. The men who decide to have nothing to do with the churches know better. They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting. They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.